Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which do you prefer?
Sierra Nevada 46 51.11%
Colorado Rockies 44 48.89%
Voters: 90. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
1,299 posts, read 2,760,040 times
Reputation: 1216

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by skihikeclimb View Post
This is a point I meant to bring up earlier. The Sierra Nevada are more rugged. The Rockies (especially in Colorado) may be tall but they are pretty tame.
Why don't you summit Maroon Bells and then say the Rockies are tame

I kid...but generally you're right, in much of the state the Rockies are more tame, especially compared to some of those pics of the Sierra Nevadas (which are blowing my mind, never knew how beautiful they were) Although not all are as rounded as that pic of Mt. Elbert, which is one of the easiest (and lamest) fourteeners to climb.

Notable exceptions are the Elks (Maroon Bells) and the San Juans (SW Colo.). Both are pretty rugged.

I remember visiting Yosemite as a kid, but I definitely need to go again. Keep the pics of SN coming!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:11 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,143,264 times
Reputation: 15174
King's River in the Sierra Nevada is magnificent for the elevation difference from the base to top:

http://images.summitpost.org/original/233345.jpg

further upstream, the scenery becomes a bit like yosemite valley:

Tehipite Valley | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/buckforester/4102550368/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 05:12 PM
 
529 posts, read 1,538,557 times
Reputation: 683
Both ranges are beautiful, but I don't think the Sierra Nevada has any edge over the rockies in terms of diversity. The east side of the Sierra Nevada have an incredible vertical relief that is unmatched by any other mountain range in the US. They are beautiful!

However the Rockies are definitely not dwarfed by the Sierra Nevada, and in terms of eco systems I think its a tie between the two. Anyone who claims that the Rockies have no steep or challenging peaks to climb obviously has never been outside the Denver/front range area. The Crestones in southern Colorado are incredibly steep and rocky, as are the San Juan Mountains in the South west part of CO particularily Mount Wilson. The Maroon Bells in the Elk mountains are one of the most challenging climbs in the US. Capitol Peak is challenging too.

The Sierra Nevada is definitely a range that has very challenging climbs/hikes but it's not the only range of it's kind in this category.

Mount Elbert is a pretty boring and "easy" mountain to climb, but there are so many others that are a force to be rekoned with in CO. Mount Whitney in the Sierra Nevada is an incredible peak but is also not a very challenging climb when compared to other peaks in both states.

Overall I'd pick the Rockies, but I love the Sierras and am heading back soon to try Mount Williamson!

Here are a few pictures of the CO mountains I mentioned


Mount Wilson


Crestones


Capitol Peak


San Juan Range and Mount Sneffels
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 05:45 PM
 
529 posts, read 1,538,557 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by skihikeclimb View Post
'
I actually agree. The Cascades and Olympic ranges in Washington State are much more dramatic than the Rockies or Sierras because they have a greater vertical relief. Plus they are glaciated which makes a big difference. The Rockies in the United States are not as glaciated. Neither are the Sierras. The Canadian Rockies are amazing.

I think the Sierras are pretty impressive though.
Actually the Olympic Mountains do not have a greater vertical relief than the Rockies or Sierra Nevada. The highest peak Mount Olympus is just under 8,000 feet ASL. There are peaks in the Sierra Nevada that reach 10,000 feet plus above the ground in a much shorter horizontal distance.

There are also peaks in the Rockies such as Pikes Peak, and Mount Sneffels, and others that reach 7,500 to 8,200 feet above the ground.

The cascades are also not any higher above the ground overall, it's the massive volcanoes in the cascades such as Mount Rainier and Mount Adams that have such an incredible vertical relief, but these make up only a fraction of the range.

The Canadian Rockies also are steeper but not any higher above the ground than the Rockies or Sierra Nevada. Mount Robson and a few others are an exception to this in the Canadian Rockies.

I agree that the Olympics, Cascades, and Canadian Rockies are beautiful, but they do not have more vertical relief as a range than the Sierras or Colorado Rockies. They are much steeper overall though and have glaciated summits, which makes them so Beautiful!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:32 PM
 
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,102,640 times
Reputation: 8104
The mountain I'm hunkering down on, Mt Shasta, is a pretty volcano near enough to the Sierra to merit a pic:



Those are the lenticular clouds so common on the mountain, which can be stunning at times:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:36 PM
 
Location: plano
7,885 posts, read 11,315,810 times
Reputation: 7789
Quote:
Originally Posted by skihikeclimb View Post
'
I actually agree. The Cascades and Olympic ranges in Washington State are much more dramatic than the Rockies or Sierras because they have a greater vertical relief. Plus they are glaciated which makes a big difference. The Rockies in the United States are not as glaciated. Neither are the Sierras. The Canadian Rockies are amazing.

I think the Sierras are pretty impressive though.
I like the Sierras best, if youve ever flown over the west coast at 37k feet when you see that range it is unbeleivable how fast it rises up. Colorado rockies go on and on and on....not that dramatic after a while just more mountain road turns and another peak to see. Olympics would be second, Tetons third, Sangre De Cristo's in NM fourth then Colorado.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:39 PM
 
529 posts, read 1,538,557 times
Reputation: 683
Here are a few more pictures of Colorado that didn't load last time. Enjoy....


Hanging Lake

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/ZapataFalls.jpg/220px-ZapataFalls.jpg (broken link)
Zapata Falls


Black Canyon of the Gunnison


Great Sand Dunes National Park


San Juan Mountains


Sangre De Cristo Mountains
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 10:50 PM
 
1,717 posts, read 4,629,247 times
Reputation: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMM64 View Post

I agree that the Olympics, Cascades, and Canadian Rockies are beautiful, but they do not have more vertical relief as a range than the Sierras or Colorado Rockies.
When it comes to visually stunning, the Cascades and the Olympics blow most of the Rockies away. Simply because of their visibility. Due in part to the vertical rise. Understand that vertical rise over water is 100%. I suggest to you that the mountains on both sides (Cascades to the east, Olympics to the west, are far more dramatic from the major metropolitan areas in Western WA, than are the Rockies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Denver/Atlanta
6,083 posts, read 10,627,926 times
Reputation: 5872
Colorado Rocies have diversity too, with alpine forest to mesas and Desert lands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Denver/Atlanta
6,083 posts, read 10,627,926 times
Reputation: 5872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Loney View Post
When it comes to visually stunning, the Cascades and the Olympics blow most of the Rockies away. Simply because of their visibility. Due in part to the vertical rise. Understand that vertical rise over water is 100%. I suggest to you that the mountains on both sides (Cascades to the east, Olympics to the west, are far more dramatic from the major metropolitan areas in Western WA, than are the Rockies.
You can see mountains perfectly fine from many cities up against the rockies, and they still look massive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top